fancythat
Margs
The American Constitution (set in stone apparently) was drawn up in the pioneering days when the settlers and colonists were fighting wolves, bears and shooting the Natives in a relentless land-grab.
Why on earth they cling ferociously to the destructive 'right to bear arms' is beyond me. The shoot-first-ask questions later philosophy seems to suit modern Americans though.
I thought they keep guns in such large numbers was because of, they are ready to fight any government[aka american civil war] if it happens.
Not exactly. A country could have a full time paid army to do that (a Standing Army). But the framers of the Constitution were totally against having a standing army because it could be used against its own citizens to support a tyrannical government.
The favoured defensive body was a militia, a body of armed citizens armed and ready to fight invading armies (or put down insurrection, though, of course, the identification of an 'insurrection' could have deeply political interpretations)
The Second Amendment expresses this
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Militia duty appears to have been obligatory and each member was obliged to provide their own weapon.
As the US has had a standing army for at least 100 years and it is hardly vulnerable to a foreign invasion (though I wonder about the 'tyranny' under the present government) the historical origins of the amendment seem to be redundant and so the need for it. But we all know that the US refuses to abandon it.